In Ogilvie et al. v. Knox Insurance Company et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a policy issued by an insurance company was valid and binding on both parties when it had been signed without any consideration being given or paid for it. The court held that, even though no money had changed hands between the two parties, there could still be a contract if one party provided something of value in exchange for another's promise to do something else. In this case, the insured gave his promise to pay premiums in exchange for protection from losses due to fire; thus, making their agreement legally enforceable despite not having exchanged money at signing. This ruling established that contracts can exist without monetary compensation as long as each party provides some form of valuable consideration in return for what they are promised by the other side

In Ogilvie et al. v. Knox Insurance Company et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it violated public policy, in this case an Illinois statute prohibiting insurance companies from issuing policies for more than five years. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it contravened public policy and therefore was void ab initio (from its inception). In his dissenting opinion, Justice Nelson argued that contracts are sacred under our system of laws and should only be voided when they violate some constitutional provision or express statutory prohibition; he believed there were no such prohibitions here as the statute did not expressly prohibit long-term contracts but merely limited their duration to five years. He further argued that even if there had been a violation of public policy, courts have no authority to declare a contract void unless specifically authorized by law; since there is nothing in either state or federal law authorizing them to do so here, he concluded that the court must enforce the agreement as written.